RNC

11/23/2008

The hits just keep coming. The degradation of our society and the politically correct war on common sense have indeed taken their toll. Have we fallen so far that any person that would have a chance to lead, would be required to pander to "special" groups, play identity politics, and bow at the altar of Al Gore's anthropogenic global warming? Will all future leaders of the Republican Party choose to coddle pro-abortion groups? A visit to The Republican Leadership Council (RLC) web-site provides potentially depressing insight into the future of the party.

Former libiot Republican governor Christie Todd Whitman is one of the three creators of the RLC (along with Lt. Gov. Michael Steele and Sen. John Danforth)... so maybe her influence gives the RLC a "move away from the right" flavor that Steele would not carry to the RNC if he were to become its chairman. However, if the RLC is indeed an indication of the future of the Republican Party, I have to wonder if it will be worthy of support. If Whitman's apparent goal of moving further to the middle is shared by the party leadership, will it retain its members? Perhaps member retention is not an issue in the modern Republican Party. Perhaps the goal is to attract new members, who as products of our education system, shun traditional values and choose politically correct causes over common sense. Of course in addition to attracting "independents" and possibly disgruntled Democrats, conservatives with values would be able to remain in the party... as long as we keep our mouths closed and support whichever indistinguishable-from-a-Democrat candidate is offered.

The RLC touts as "successful" examples, Republican politicians who one might expect to have a horn protruding from his or her nose (RINOs.) Would Michael Steele heed their caution against moving to the right?

3 Successful Republicans Caution Against a Move to the Right

by Robert F. Bukaty, Associated Press

As Congressional Republicans lick their political wounds and try to figure out how to bounce back in 2010 and beyond, they might want to consult with Susan Collins, Lamar Alexander and Peter T. King.
Senator Collins, Senator Alexander and Representative King were among Republicans who defied the odds in a terrible year for their colleagues. Their re-elections provide a possible road map for how the party can succeed in a challenging political environment. The answer, the three veteran politicians agreed, is not to become a more conservative, combative party focused on narrow partisan issues.
“What doesn’t work is drawing a harsh ideological line in the sand,” said Ms. Collins, of Maine, who early in the year was a top Democratic target for defeat but ended up winning 61 percent of the vote while Senator Barack Obama received 58 percent in the presidential race in her state.
“We make a mistake if we are going to make our entire appeal rural and outside the Northeast and outside the Rust Belt,” said Mr. King, of New York, who easily won re-election in a region shedding Republicans at a precipitous rate.
“We can stand around and talk about our principles, but we have to put them into actions that most people agree with,” said Mr. Alexander, of Tennessee, a self-described conservative who was able to attract African-American voters.

Susan Collins and Lamar Alexander are exactly what I picture when I think of conservative values... in a parallel universe maybe.

RLC-PAC members consider themselves True Conservative Republicans. Republicans who believe that our elected officials have a responsibility to their constituents to spend their money wisely. We believe that government should have a limited role in Americans' personal lives. And we believe in a strong national defense.

The Republican Leadership Council PAC or RLC-PAC is a political action committee dedicated to supporting fiscally conservative, socially inclusive Republican candidates at all levels of government. Governor Whitman also created a 527 to advance the issues that help define Real Conservative members of the Republican Party.

RLC-PAC is NOT defined by one issue. We believe, as you can see through our diverse National Board, that people who believe in the core Republican values can find common ground on social issues.

There are some inconsistencies and problems there (in addition to Governor Whitman, I mean.) The problem is that by stating "We believe that government should have a limited role in Americans' personal lives" they, in my opinion, are being contradictory. I agree that government should have an extremely limited role in American's personal lives, but I don't believe that is what is meant in the statement. I get the impression that this is directed toward the so-called "social issues." Whitman is pro-choice and Michael Steele believes Roe v. Wade should remain in place. This one bad decision by the Supreme Court plays a huge role in Americans' personal lives! Oh well, I suppose I am just a cave man for doubting that a woman has a right to have her baby put to death and that this right must be protected from any interference by the voters of any individual state. After all, doesn't the Constitution specifically give the Supreme Court the power to overturn the will of the citizens of any particular state on an activist whim?

Would Michael Steele's RNC strive to be "socially inclusive?" The RLC's list of strategic partners gives cause for concern. Examples:

Log Cabin Republicans
The mission of the Log Cabin Republicans is to work within the Republican Party to advocate equal rights for all Americans, including gays and lesbians. Log Cabin’s mission derives from our firm belief in the principles of limited government, individual liberty, individual responsibility, free markets and a strong national defense. We emphasize that these principles and the moral values on which they stand are consistent with the pursuit of equal treatment under the law for gay and lesbian Americans.

All Americans already have equal rights. The existence of this group is based on a desire for attention and special treatment based on sexual preference. Is the idea that homosexuals will all vote Democrat unless the Republican Party gives them special acknowledgment? Should we all make a special effort to respect their private lives by making special public proclamations in support of their private lives? (Confusing, isn't it?)

Of course the pro-infanticide population is well represented with four organizations among the RLC's strategic partners, including:

Republican Majority for Choice
The Republican Majority for Choice is an organization of Republican men and women throughout the United States, who believe in our party’s traditional principles of individual liberty, strong national security and sound economic reason. They endorse the ‘big tent’ philosophy of inclusion and tolerance on social issues, and support the protection of Roe v. Wade and want to ensure that the right to choose is personal and NOT political.

Silly me, I thought Roe v. Wade's assault on the rights of individual states ensured that this issue remain political as well as personal. I am also confused about how something so basic as protecting innocent life can be dismissed as a minor "social issue."

The bottom line is the RLC's focus seems trained on being a more moderate Republican Party and placing special groups on pedestals based on identity politics. It could very well be that Michael Steele will become the RNC chairman and provide wonderful conservative leadership. However, if the RLC, its strategic partners, and the columns it displays on its site are any indication of Michael Steele's leadership, I don't think conservatives with values will be able to stomach it.

I believe it is necessary to reiterate my position on Roe v. Wade for those of you who would seize on it like a dog to a bone. Seeking the overturn of this bad Supreme Court decision is not equal to seeking government interference in private lives! It is seeking to get the federal government out of the way of the states and the rights of the states!

11/12/2008

I don't usually read David Brooks' pieces, but I have heard quite a bit about his, ahem, "opinions" while listening to The Laura Ingraham Show. Apparently Mr. Brooks takes offense at the notion of principled conservatives leading the Republican Party. If the Republican Party is to one day rise from the ashes like the Phoenix, according to Mr. Brooks at least, they must follow "the Reformers." (Note: By the Phoenix, I do not mean Arizona senator John McCain, although I'm certain David Brooks would include him in "the Reformers.")

"The Reformers" sounds like a powerful group that a principled conservative could possibly support, right? Not so fast, as John McCain would say, "my friends." "The Reformers" that are prescribed by Dr. Brooks as the cure for an ailing Republican Party are indeed nothing more than the RINOs that have played such a large role in the fall of the party. (Disclaimer: I am just a working man that graduated from Southern Illinois University so naturally I wouldn't understand the complex thinking of those that , for example, graduated from the schools that gave us the Obamas.)

To overcome the odds and drag the once-great party back to the pinnacle of American politics, "the Reformers" must vanquish the enemy of progress. You may be thinking, "I thought liberal Democrats referred to themselves as progressive." You would be correct, but there is not a lot of difference between liberal Democrats and the valiant "Reformers." Just who the enemy is, David Brooks describes in today's NY Times column, "Darkness at Dusk."

In one camp, there are the Traditionalists, the people who believe that conservatives have lost elections because they have strayed from the true creed. George W. Bush was a big-government type who betrayed conservatism. John McCain was a Republican moderate, and his defeat discredits the moderate wing.

The enemy has been identified, "the Traditionalists" with their antiquated principles and rustic attachment to conservatism. This menace must be eradicated if the Republican Party is to ascend to the heights envisioned by Brooks and RINO snobs everywhere! The party can only hope to survive if it makes itself completely indistinguishable from the Democrat Party. Make sense? Not to me, but then again I put more stock in common sense and values than I do an ability to identify wine.

Who knows why Brooks writes the things he does? Perhaps he is a Republican because his parents were Republican (much like the Democrats whose parents told them, Republicans are for big business and Democrats are for the little guy.) Perhaps the New York Times needed a Republican columnist and he is pretending for the sake of a paycheck. It could be that the bully who beat him up as a child grew up to become a principled conservative. Maybe it is as simple as elitist snobbery and the refreshing rise of Governor Sarah Palin pushed Mr. Brooks and fellow snobs over the edge.

Brooks describes the philosophy and attributes of the brave "Reformer":

The other camp, the Reformers, argue that the old G.O.P. priorities were fine for the 1970s but need to be modernized for new conditions. The reformers tend to believe that American voters will not support a party whose main idea is slashing government. The Reformers propose new policies to address inequality and middle-class economic anxiety. They tend to take global warming seriously. They tend to be intrigued by the way David Cameron has modernized the British Conservative Party.

Moreover, the Reformers say, conservatives need to pay attention to the way the country has changed. Conservatives have to appeal more to Hispanics, independents and younger voters. They cannot continue to insult the sensibilities of the educated class and the entire East and West Coasts.

While I can agree with the benefit of appealing to younger voters, I disagree that the party should sell its collective soul in order to accomplish this! If liberal policies are what a voter of any age, or demographic seeks, why wouldn't he, she, or it (transgendered?) simply align with the real Democrat Party? Why would said voter choose the cheap substitute that once was the Republican Party? Doesn't the Democrat Party already cover the bases with the global warming scam and the manufacturing killing plans to combat the false crisis? I believe open borders advocates as well as those seeking to capitalize on perceived "inequalities" can meet there needs with the real Democrat Party.

Here is a suggestion for David Brooks and the rest of "the Reformers." Please take your educated sensibilities to the party that already fits the description of your ideal and leave the Republican Party to be rescued by principled conservatives. Also, don't let the door hit you on your way back to the more educated and sensibility enjoying coast!

09/12/2008

This excruciatingly pro-longed election season has been a mental and emotional roller coaster for most that follow it closely. I can only speak from my personal conservative perspective and say that the current situation might qualify as a crisis. This crisis demands action… yet who knows which course of action is in the best interests of our nation? This particular day, September 11, is a reminder of what has been done to our nation and what we are up against. Today’s reminder of the threats we face makes the conservative voter’s decision making even more difficult.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines crisis as:

1. A crucial or decisive point or situation; turning point.

2. A sudden change in the course of an acute disease toward improvement or deterioration.

My personal ride on the “Election 2008″ roller coaster began when Rudy Giuliani was being touted as the front-runner for the Republican nomination and peddled by “political strategists” as the only one that could beat Hillary Clinton. Soul searching and self-examination convinced me that I could never cast a vote for a candidate that believes it is acceptable for a mother to request that her child be killed as a matter of “choice.” Once The Republican Party’s preference was eliminated as an option for me, I began to search for a candidate. I found that I could stand firmly behind two candidates while a few more would have been acceptable if the candidates I agreed with were no longer in the race. There were also a couple of candidates for which I doubted I could actually support.

I chose to do everything I could to help the best man in the race, Representative Duncan Hunter, win the nomination of the party to which I believed I belonged. Energized and filled with “hope” (not Barack “Born Alive, Let Them Die” Obama’s brand) I worked as hard as I could for the candidate I still believe to be the best choice for our country. Conservative ideals were not to be heard on public airwaves as the party and talk show hosts decided to push “moderates” with money. Eventually Congressmen Hunter and Tancredo ended their campaigns, leaving a choice between less than conservative Republicans.

While disheartened, I decided to support the most conservative of the remaining candidates. Unfortunately the combination of early “open” primaries and Huckabee’s hatred of Mitt Romney combined to leave one man standing at the end of The Republican Primary fiasco. The low point in the track had been reached as John McCain, champion of illegal aliens, enemy of free speech, and passenger on Al Gore’s anthropogenic global warming bandwagon was left as the the nominee. Naturally, I felt the nausea sometimes associated with a sudden descent, but this time the ill feeling lingered much longer.